People need to grow up. Someone's cute and sexy, great. Why not show everyone her cosplay just cos she's nice. Nobody complained about the chubby ones showing their skin. Or that Diablo Barbarian in a loincloth? Is this some perverted kind of reverse sexism? I see a future where nobody beautiful lets anyone make pictures of him/her, because they might get labelled as sluts/whores just because of the way they look. Nevermind the actual craftwork they put into their costumes or the art behind that.

This thread, coupled with the recent 'LGBT laws in Russia' makes me very sad. Most of the western culture seems to believe 'being immoral and intentionally bringing your human nature closer to animal instincts' means 'freedom'.

Mr. finskee is the master of logical fallacies here - you do nothing but call out everyone who makes a point on their 'slut-shaming'. Guess what: if a woman does everything with a hidden agenda of getting attention, it doesn't mean your americandreamish-shit like 'she's doing what she wants because she's free!'. It means only one thing: she's attention-whoring. If the only thing you can do to attract attention is to appeal to men's animal instincts, then, duh, you're just whoring/slutting yourself out. Stop using fallacies and sophistication to prove otherwise. It doesn't even matter what we're talking about - it's not just about cosplay and this particular woman. There's plenty of movies, books, pieces of art, cartoons, anime etc that are filled with so-called 'fanservice', which is, in essence, just an whoring-out attempt to play on primitive stuff.

As someone in this thread stated, look at that Wrynn girl cosplayer. She's not half-naked, even her body doesn't look ideal. Yet she is beautiful, sexy, attractive and her cosplay (not just the costume, but the whole feel brought up by the combination of it with the person who wears it) is very spectacular. Yet you probably think she 'isn't free', bah.

Originally Posted by foxHeart

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that many, many people in wow are very passionate in their obsession with acting like a complete retard.

I swear that there was some fan-art done of a genderbent Lich King in this exact costume, complete with the little skull panties, and that this is actually a cosplay of that fanart, but I can't for the life of me remember where it was, and I'm not about to go on a terrifying google adventure to find it.

...Women do cosplay all the time. Most are only remarking on the fact that it's basically a bikini with skulls and a pretty nice helm. But still, I swear this design actually originated from a fanart. If I'm right, that actually makes me like it a lot more.

As it is, it just seems excessive to basically just be wearing the Lich Bikini.

Why is is excessive?

Originally Posted by Stir

Hardly dressed up.

I thought it was about the costume, not about the person wearing it. Honestly, her costume is mostly just bodypaint.

What's wrong with some good full plate armour?

Nothing wrong with either. The problem is why the contention that there should be a preference for the latter over the former because the former is somehow morally wrong and offers some kind of negative reflection on the woman wearing it.

Excessive because it's going for the pretty bleh 'plate bikini' pandering which is a tired, old trope. Haven't you heard? The cool thing now is proper plate armor for women, a la Brienne of Tarth, and I like it that way.

I just feel like the plate bikini is trying too hard to push the sexiness angle of something that doesn't really need a sexiness angle at all.

As someone in this thread stated, look at that Wrynn girl cosplayer. She's not half-naked, even her body doesn't look ideal. Yet she is beautiful, sexy, attractive and her cosplay (not just the costume, but the whole feel brought up by the combination of it with the person who wears it) is very spectacular. Yet you probably think she 'isn't free', bah.

Of course she's free. The problem is that people are judging her as "good" because her outfit covers more, whereas the Lich Queen one is "bad" because of her choice covering less. What they're wearing really shouldn't be taken as a reference point in terms of judging them as a person.

Nothing wrong with either. The problem is why the contention that there should be a preference for the latter over the former because the former is somehow morally wrong and offers some kind of negative reflection on the woman wearing it.

It's not morally wrong... It's cheap.
Basically: She's using the fact that males find her attractive in order to win the costume contest. People with better costumes will not have as good a chance of winning, because she's naked and many people are feeling intimate parts swell up when looking at her.

This thread, coupled with the recent 'LGBT laws in Russia' makes me very sad. Most of the western culture seems to believe 'being immoral and intentionally bringing your human nature closer to animal instincts' means 'freedom'.

Mr. finskee is the master of logical fallacies here - you do nothing but call out everyone who makes a point on their 'slut-shaming'. Guess what: if a woman does everything with a hidden agenda of getting attention, it doesn't mean your americandreamish-shit like 'she's doing what she wants because she's free!'. It means only one thing: she's attention-whoring. If the only thing you can do to attract attention is to appeal to men's animal instincts, then, duh, you're just whoring/slutting yourself out. Stop using fallacies and sophistication to prove otherwise. It doesn't even matter what we're talking about - it's not just about cosplay and this particular woman. There's plenty of movies, books, pieces of art, cartoons, anime etc that are filled with so-called 'fanservice', which is, in essence, just an whoring-out attempt to play on primitive stuff.

As someone in this thread stated, look at that Wrynn girl cosplayer. She's not half-naked, even her body doesn't look ideal. Yet she is beautiful, sexy, attractive and her cosplay (not just the costume, but the whole feel brought up by the combination of it with the person who wears it) is very spectacular. Yet you probably think she 'isn't free', bah.

Yes! I get to be Master of Logical Fallacies! I am humbled!

Wow I just read through your posting history and you might be the most conservative person in the world. And that's being as nice as I can about it. /backawayslowly

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by swagster

wait it's not the first slut? what a surprise! the world is full of sluts

Originally Posted by swagster

I don't know why you guys are surprised. Females are mostly attention whores when games are involved.

Originally Posted by swagster

shes ugly as FUCK rofl OP

And as for how to deal with females in your guild:

Originally Posted by swagster

It's very simple. Don't invite females to your guild, or, if you're not the leader, leave the guild as soon as you spot one.

I didn't realize people like you still existed. Thank you for educating me.

It's not morally wrong... It's cheap.
Basically: She's using the fact that males find her attractive in order to win the costume contest. People with better costumes will not have as good a chance of winning, because she's naked and many people are feeling intimate parts swell up when looking at her.

It's unfair and cheap. A costume contest should be a costume contest.

Who are you to say it's cheap? Her body compliments her costume and vice versa. She might work really hard to be in the shape that she's in. If anything, I'd say she deserves credit for tailoring the costume to fit her physique.

Physical attraction is a thing, you know. It seems to be a trend nowadays to deny it, but incorporating your body with art or work doesn't invalidate or devalue that per sé. Please stop being so quick to pull the trigger on the you're-just-thinking-with-your-dick gun.